A Woman's Right to her Body

[LetThereBe]

It is. As I have explained multiple times it is a demonstration that emotions and or morals can sometimes make certain options unavailable to us. You just keep going in circles.

I am going in circles because I'm still trying to find some way to fit your various views and unbacked statements into a coherent and consistent argument. I am still not able to do so.
This is what it seems like you are arguing:

1. Not all women have the choice of abortion due to personal moral constraints
2. Because of this, not all women can get abortions
3. Since not all women can get abortions, it is A-Okay to legally obligate men to pay child support

This is obviously a terrible argument. The fact that a woman has the choice is what matters. Just because some women don't exercise that choice doesn't mean we should legally remove an analogous choice from men.

So, if this ISN'T what you are arguing, what does it matter if "emotions or morals can sometimes make certain options unavailable to us". It is completely irrelevant to the subject of abortion, child support, and equitable law.

It was an answer to your question. Maybe you should clarify your question.

My question is plenty clear. Can a vegetarian eat a tuna sandwich.
Haha, of course in this case you could argue that by consuming one they cease to be a vegetarian so the answer is no... but tricky semantics aside the answer is of course yes. They have the capability to do it. They can do it.
That doesn't mean they WILL do it.
I think you are confusing the words "could" and "would".

[BlackSheep]

It does change the value of the question, in part by making your argumentative tactics look foolish when I don't give the answer you might expect. Much of what you have said regarding this topic has been baseless and unsubstantiable. That emotions.

I responded t your post because you brought my argument her and seriously mischaracterized it. A rhetorical question does not require an answer and that fact that you claim you could kill your mother does not change the vale of the question. It is obvious your response is at the best unusual.

If you wish to retort my arguments please do, instead of some broad general statement that is unsupported. That is emotions.

stop/prevent/makeitimpossibletochooseXoption anyone from doing anything is an unsupportable argument, because you cannot demonstrate that someone has insurmountable emotions rather than a lack of willpower or even a lack of desire to do something. You assert that some women can't choose to have an abortion; you argue that some vegetarians can't choose to eat meat; you argue that some people can't choose to kill their mothers, but you have failed to show that these people cannot make the choice. These people are choosing to not have an abortion/killtheirmother/eatmeat. When asked "how do emotions make it impossible for people to choose one of their options" you don't explain the processes behind it, you basically say that "they just do".

And you have failed to show they can. You have refused to accept peoples claims in this regard.
I said I can not more explain mechanically how emotions or morals motivate us than you can.

Some people's emotions prevent them from choosing to abort.
How do their emotions prevent them from choosing that option?
Their emotions just do.
That doesn't make sense, you haven't explained how emotions stop a person from choosing to abort.
Some people cannot choose to abort.
I'm fairly sure that abortion is a legal option available to all pregnant woman. What is stopping them?
Their emotions make abortion an impossible choice to choose.
How?
Could you kill your mother?
Yes, but I don't have a good incentive to, plus its illegal.
Well... Uh... Well some people can't. They just can't. Same thing with abortion.
Please explain how exactly emotions disable people from choosing options that are available to them.
Mennonites don't fight. Their emotions stop them from joining the military, and they are supported by the courts.
Anyone can pretend like they are opposed to fighting and get out of combative military service, which is not mandatory.
I'm not saying that Women, Mennonites, and Depressed people are weak willed, I'm just saying that they are too emotional to make decisions about their lives.

The above dialogue never occurred. They way you have presented the above series of sentences is intellectually dishonest as it suggests I said things that I did not. if you wish to bring forth an argument I made, please be clear and honest about it. Quote the significant parts to capture the whole meaning and provide a link.

[BlackSheep]

I am going in circles because I'm still trying to find some way to fit your various views and unbacked statements into a coherent and consistent argument. I am still not able to do so.

First. I have not made a clear argument in this thread. I was defending myself from el who was mischaracterizing my argument.

This is what it seems like you are arguing:

1. Not all women have the choice of abortion due to personal moral constraints
2. Because of this, not all women can get abortions
3. Since not all women can get abortions, it is A-Okay to legally obligate men to pay child support

This is obviously a terrible argument. The fact that a woman has the choice is what matters. Just because some women don't exercise that choice doesn't mean we should legally remove a similar choice from men.

My arguments are counter-arguments.

Both parents have an obligation to their child.

So, if this ISN'T what you are arguing, what does it matter if "emotions or morals can sometimes make certain options unavailable to us". It is completely irrelevant to the subject of abortion, child support, and equitable law.

The emotion/moral issue is that simply allowing men to walk away is not fair to the child.

My question is plenty clear. Can a vegetarian eat a tuna sandwich.
Haha, of course in this case you could argue that by consuming one they cease to be a vegetarian so the answer is no... but tricky semantics aside the answer is of course yes. They have the capability to do it. They can do it.
That doesn't mean they WILL do it.
I think you are confusing the words "could" and "would".

I am not confusing them at all.

I said most could, some could not. Some would not be able to do so.

[LetThereBe]

Both parents have an obligation to their child.

The mother's to give birth and the father's to pay child support?

The emotion/moral issue is that simply allowing men to walk away is not fair to the child.

How does that have anything to do with it being an emotional/moral issue for a woman to get an abortion? This is completely unrelated.
Besides, it is even more unfair to a child that it doesn't have even a chance at life when a woman gets an abortion.

I said most could, some could not. Some would not be able to do so.

All could. Some would.
If you are capable, you can. Everyone is capable, just many are not willing.

[JimL]

I think truly braindead people should be used as bins of spare parts for organ transplants. If you want to keep them around as a disturbing alternative to a houseplant you can, but I'll give you a really odd look.

Well, that is a question though isn't it? When is a human being no longer a human being? The difference though is that unlike the brain dead, a fetus has not been determined to ever have been a human being.

You are who you are because of what you've observed. If all that's gone and you can no longer feel pain or appreciate the difference between being alive and dead, then I think it no longer matters.

Perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that it has been determined, and we all agree, that they were at one time human beings, whereas, brain dead or not, we do not all agree, and it has not been determined, when it is that they no longer are human beings. A fetus on the other hand has not been determined ever to have become a human being, there is no consensus on that. So, to summarize, it has not been determined that the brain dead are not human, so to abort them would be murder, and it has not been determined that a fetus is human so to abort them could not be murder.

The woman's right to her body does not come into play, although she does carry nearly all responsibility for managing her body. The fetus merely has rights somewhat inferior to a mouse. Don't kill things if you have a genuine choice, but killing something like this is not the worst thing you could possibly do.

If the fetus has not been determined to be a distinct individual, a human being, then it can only be considered as a part of the womens body and so, along with the rest of her body, its only rights reside in her.

[JimL]

The existence of dispute does not negate all rights. I'm sure there are people that don't consider the senile or the mentally handicapped "human". I'm sure there are some crazy racists that don't consider some minorities human. We don't suddenly leave it up to the "hosts" or caretakers to decide whether or not they have rights just because some people question it.

Of course we leave it up to the hosts, we don't leave it up to themselves do we? If in the case of the fetus, the mother is determined to be the host, then it is left up to the mother. If in the case of the senile or brain dead, the state is determined to be the host, then it is left up to the state.

Some professionals are legally obligated to try and prevent a person from committing suicide. This is a clear example of not being able to do what you please with your body.

If a person wants to commit suicide, then no one can stop them.

Some people certainly consider it a human being.

It is some peoples opinion that a fetus is a human being yes, but unlike that of the mentally ill or the senile, there is no consensus or legal determination on that. Some people consider the fetus not to be human.

[BlackSheep]

The mother's to give birth and the father's to pay child support?

For both to support and raise the child. If they are unwilling to do that then to simply pay child support.

How does that have anything to do with it being an emotional/moral issue for a woman to get an abortion? This is completely unrelated.

Because if she is unable to and the father just walks away the child is minus any support from the father. The emotional / moral issue is that one can not assume the mother can simply abort because the father walks away.

Besides, it is even more unfair to a child that it doesn't have even a chance at life when a woman gets an abortion.

Rights and obligations are all defined in law. It is not a child at that point.

All could. Some would.

If they simply would then they are not really vegetarians are they?

If you are capable, you can. Everyone is capable, just many are not willing.

Not at all and that is the point you continue to ignore. Some people are powerfully emotional / moral about certain issues and they are not capable of doing certain actions.

[LetThereBe]

Of course we leave it up to the hosts, we don't leave it up to themselves do we? If in the case of the fetus, the mother is determined to be the host, then it is left up to the mother. If in the case of the senile or brain dead, the state is determined to be the host, then it is left up to the state.

Haha... last time I checked, we don't allow ANYONE to terminate the senile.

If a person wants to commit suicide, then no one can stop them.

Not true. Psychiatric hospitals often have rooms designed with the express purpose of creating an environment where a patient cannot hurt his/herself.

It is some peoples opinion that a fetus is a human being yes, but unlike that of the mentally ill or the senile, there is no consensus or legal determination on that. Some people consider the fetus not to be human.

...which is why things should finally be clarified. It isn't that the fetus is or is not a legal person, it is more that the question hasn't been answered. One way or another this should be done.

[LetThereBe]

For both to support and raise the child. If they are unwilling to do that then to simply pay child support.

Why don't we include giving it life as an obligation? Isn't that pretty important?

Because if she is unable to and the father just walks away the child is minus any support from the father. The emotional / moral issue is that one can not assume the mother can simply abort because the father walks away.

That is just another factor that goes into the choice she makes. It isn't like keeping it and aborting it are the only choices... if she can't afford it but CHOOSES not to abort, she can also give it up for adoption.

Rights and obligations are all defined in law. It is not a child at that point.

It has the same capacity for suffering and consciousness five minutes after birth as it does five minutes before. The fact that we CURRENTLY do not legally consider it a child is irrelevant.

If they simply would then they are not really vegetarians are they?

Thanks for playing with semantics in the exact way I suggested is obviously not useful to the discussion. The point is that they are capable.

Not at all and that is the point you continue to ignore. Some people are powerfully emotional / moral about certain issues and they are not capable of doing certain actions.

They are capable. They are not willing.
You don't seem to realize what capable means. It isn't even an important point to the argument, but it is something they CAN do.

[JimL]

Haha... last time I checked, we don't allow ANYONE to terminate the senile.

Ha Ha! Thats exactly right, and thats because we, i.e. society, the host, have made the determination that the senile as well as the brain dead have for this reason not ceased to be human beings. They were human beings and they remain human beings until death. But in the case of the fetus, 1) We, i.e. society or the state are not the host, the mother is, and 2) we, society, have not made a determination that the fetus has even reached the status of human being and so have no say as to its having the rights of a human being.

Not true. Psychiatric hospitals often have rooms designed with the express purpose of creating an environment where a patient cannot hurt his/herself.

Well once again, we, society, are now the host, and being that they are human beings in our view, it is in principle illegal to kill a human being, even if that human being is ones self, but there can be no punishment for that crime should one pull it off.

...which is why things should finally be clarified. It isn't that the fetus is or is not a legal person, it is more that the question hasn't been answered. One way or another this should be done.

And until and unless that question is answered then the fetus is not a human being, giving the state no recourse in the matter.

[LetThereBe]

Ha Ha! Thats exactly right, and thats because we, i.e. society, the host, have made the determination that the senile as well as the brain dead have for this reason not ceased to be human beings. They were human beings and they remain human beings until death. But in the case of the fetus, 1) We, i.e. society or the state are not the host, the mother is, and 2) we, society, have not made a determination that the fetus has even reached the status of human being and so have no say as to its having the rights of a human being.

"Society" is not always the host. Often families care for their own senile and infirm parents.

Well once again, we, society, are now the host, and being that they are human beings in our view, it is in principle illegal to kill a human being, even if that human being is ones self, but there can be no punishment for that crime should one pull it off.

How is society the "host" for a self-sustaining individual that decides (for whatever reason) to end its own life? It is not a parasite... there is no host.
Either way, this discredits your belief that "you can do whatever you want with your own body".
If you want to argue that society can deprive a suicidal individual the right to do what they want with their body, then society can also deprive a mother the right to abort.

And until and unless that question is answered then the fetus is not a human being, giving the state no recourse in the matter.

The question being unanswered does not make it "not a human being". As has been brought up already, the state already situationally considers it a human being... such as cases of double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed.

[minorwork]

The question being unanswered does not make it "not a human being". As has been brought up already, the state already situationally considers it a human being... such as cases of double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed.

The killer has, like the state or any forcing their mandates on the mother, acted against the mother without her being willing. I'm surprised the blind life huggers haven't assigned a charge of murder to each egg the woman possessed.

If you advocate that the state can act so against the mother then there is no debate. Of course force, power can prevail against any if in sufficient quantity. But should it? I say no. The mother suffers the pregnancy and birth and so by genetic heritage and as a free person of independent thought and morality bears responsibility. To allow any other to dictate to her on this subject is to enslave her to the will of the majority or the more powerful. Indeed that is what the killer has done. Are you suggesting the state or you take on the role of the killer empowered to supplant the pregnant mother's will with your own?